We’ve been hearing of all these areas in Washington being shut down. Even the war memorial to elderly visiting veteran groups. But an immigration rally was allowed to go on. There were port-a-potties set up the day before, there was a band that poled and thousands of attendees. This appears to be partisanship at its worst. Is there another explanation? A NY Times article offers this:
The two instances are not even close. One allowed visiting vets to pay their respects, the other is a political rally. I could see them allowing people to access the area, but the setting up of bathrooms and allowing a band to set up, and then have to clean up after everyone seems to go against the notion that federal parks, etc. had to be closed. But Obama made an exception for this:
This stinks to me. It’s an example of the worst type of partisanship by Obama. Now, I’m no fan of his, but even those of you who are, isn’t this just the type of thing that makes people disgusted with Washington/politicians/politics, and Obama himself. If not, what’s the justification in light of all the other stories we’ve been hearing?
You’re right. It is bullshit that veterans were allowed to visit a closed memorial under the fig leaf of “First Amendment rights”. They weren’t expressing anything. And the administration caved and gave them a special dispensation solely because of PR grandstanding by some Congress blowhard.
On the other hand, how is a political rally (one that probably was planned and scheduled long before the shutdown) *not *a First Amendment thing ?
AS noted in the story, a number of the immigration protesters were arrested. If the hypothetical Tea Party protesters were arrested under identical circumstances, this would be taken as evidence of Obama clamping down on First Amendment rights.
Let’s remember:
Immigration protesters arrested = Obama giving special treatment to liberals despite the government shutdown
Tea Party protesters arrested = Obama violating the First Amendment
I’m pretty sure it was political when a Republican Congressman went to the war memorial and screamed at a park ranger, but that was also allowed. It sounds to me that the rule made a point of allowing protests just so they wouldn’t be accused of stifling them. That includes people protesting the closure of memorials or this.
If this is political bias, it makes no sense. Immigration reform was dead in the water anyway, but even if it wasn’t, absolutely nobody is going to pay attention to it while the government is shut down. And I don’t think Obama would want people to be distracted from the shutdown right now.
The shutdown and the default fight are the worst kind of partisanship. Complaints like this are what you see when Republicans realize this is going badly for them.
There’s a real simple solution to the situation the OP is so offended by. The republican congress-toddlers can get over their tantrum and pass the damn budget already.
Alternatively, the senate can sign one of the bills the house sent over that fully fund the government. If the closing of the government is so bad, then why not agree to fund it fully and delay one aspect of Obamacare for a year?
There hasn’t been one. All they’ve passed is can-kicking bills that fund a bit less than the *full *government - as you must know. :dubious: The Senate has already passed and sent to the House multiple bills that fund all of the government, including ones that do more than kick the can.
I don’t understand the First Amendment argument. Why couldn’t the organizers simply change venues, or postpone the event? Neither of those options seems like any kind of infringement on freedom of speech, as long as the rules were applied fairly to all groups wanting to hold rallies given the current shutdown.